say will help keep costs down by using market-driven solutions to develop renewable projects. The bill would also create a Green Source Rider Program to allows large utility customers to take control of their energy purchasing." The federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act makes it mandatory for utility companies to purchase renewable energy from independent power developers. HB589 would allow utility companies to work with state regulators to propose a program that would "procure renewable energy at a competitive rate." Utility companies would then be allowed to compete and bid against third-party energy developers. Duke Energy proposed a measure in 2016 that is similar to the bill (the North Carolina Utilities Commission rejected a similar measure in 2014). Additionally, the bill would create a program for solar panel leasing. The intent is to create a competitive market to install renewable energy and encourage the installation of more rooftop and other solar energy projects. Utility companies will be allowed to propose changes to net metering rates after the completion of a cost and benefits analysis. Existing solar customers would be grandfathered under the original rates until January 2027. Ohio Recently, it has become a popular trend for utilities in several states to dramatically increase their consumers' fixed charges in order to account for the cost-shift created by the growing number of net metering customers who do not cover their share of grid upkeep costs, which, subsequently, places the burden onto non-solar panel customers. The average increase of fixed charges is estimated at 20 percent. In Ohio, American Electric Power (AEP) proposed to more than double its fixed charges from $8.40 per month to $18.40 per month, affecting nearly 1.5 million customers in order to accommodate for the increase costs due to net metering. AEP was under investigation by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for allegedly double-charging their customers a total of $120 million to supposedly cover fuel costs for one of their power plants in Lawerenceburg, Indiana and for two other power plants operated by Ohio Valley Electric Corp. The double-charge would have affected 67 percent or 1 million customers who had opted out of an alternate supplier. In 2014, PUCO enlisted an outside firm to conduct an audit focusing on their consumers' charges. The findings concluded that the customers were indeed overpaying. At the same time, AEP was being reimbursed for their fuel costs twice in a period